I have a certain level of uneasiness when it comes to the "I'm not at risk from COVID so I don't want to chance the vaccine" perspective because it sounds a lot like it's favouring the individual.
Perhaps so, but at some point the rights of the individual are more important than the obligations of that individual to society.
The right of a healthy person to refuse to undergo medical treatment - even if for a purely selfish reason - is a very fundamental line that must never be crossed. Where does it end? Will I be called selfish for not donating one of my kidneys to some random stranger in order to help get the donor list down? Or one of my corneas? This is one area where there really isn't a spectrum of acceptable answers - it is my body, not the states, not societys.
We've had many attempts over the last century to create societies where the state is more important than the individual. I don't want to live in such a place.
[*]Few people feel the way you do and so vaccine uptake throughout society is generally high - you then benefit from a further reduction in your risk of being negatively affected by contracting COVID because the number of potentially-contagious people circulating in society is reduced, or;
[*]Many people feel the way you do and so vaccine uptake throughout society is comparatively low - you then experience no significant change in your risk of being negatively affected by contracting COVID, but because the number of potentially-contagious people circulating in society decreases much more slowly vulnerable people experience an increase in their risk that can only be mitigated by their voluntarily restricting their lives for longer, or by prolonged restrictions on society as a whole.
It seems you're hoping to live in a society where everyone has equal risks, and an overarching responsibility to mitigate risks to others. We've never tried to do that before this year, not least because it just isn't possible in anything approximating to a free country. This *is* the exact argument used to justify lockdowns, which is one of the many reasons they are deeply problematic. To have a properly functioning, free society, we have to accept that sometimes people will do things that could potentially have some negative effect on others. And vulnerable people are, unfortunately, vulnerable - by definition. That doesn't justify recklessness or malice, but in my book the bar is very low after that.
If a person who has no reason to believe they are ill is going around and inadvertently spreading a disease, I can't say I care. That's how things have always worked, we accept it as part of living in a free society. There's no blame to attribute to them for living their life in a normal fashion. Unless they are eg. deliberately coughing in the face of grannies, which would be rather unreasonable, they clear my bar to qualify as a functioning member of society.
For what it is worth, I'm understating a little when I say I'm not at risk from Covid. I'm on the 'vulnerable' list - for a handful of reasons - which is why I've already been offered vaccination. Part of the reason I'm not keen is that I have no way of knowing what the effect of vaccination would be on someone with my particular collection of medical issues, at least not until we have a lot more data. But there's a bigger issue here than that.